M/S MEDI DRIPS CARRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.471/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward-12(4), 8Th Floor, R.No.818, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 4, Synagogue Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm 8139 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Rustogi, Aca Revenue By : Shri Saurav Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 01/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.490/Xii/12(4)/10-11, Dated 11.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Said Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By Four Days. The Assessee Filed The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Expressed The Reasons Of Delay. After Verification Of Petition We Found That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Four Days Delay In Filing The Appeal. Even Ld Dr Did Not Object To Condone The Delay. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2008. Subsequently The 2 M/S Medi Drips Carries Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Company Filed Its Revised Return Of Income On 9-12-2008

disallowing the claim of the assessee pertaining to the depreciation of Rs. 9,70,663, learned senior counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in Kinetic Motors Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 186 CTR (Bom) 534. The question before the Bombay High Court was whether it was open to the AO to make adjustment

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well that of assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shrip.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

2)(ii) of the Rules. 12. We further direct that after re-working the gross disallowance of Rule 8D in terms of the discussion and direction given above, the A.O. shall reduce the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- already suo-moto disallowed by the assessee under section 14A and the net sum so computed alone shall be added back

KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue as well that of assessee both are dismissed

Bench: Shrip.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara

2)(ii) of the Rules. 12. We further direct that after re-working the gross disallowance of Rule 8D in terms of the discussion and direction given above, the A.O. shall reduce the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- already suo-moto disallowed by the assessee under section 14A and the net sum so computed alone shall be added back

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JAY SHREE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.736 & 737/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13) Jcit (Osd), Cir-4(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 10, Camac Street, Industry House, 15Th Floor, Kolkata – Kolkata – 700 069. 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 7788 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

2) (iii). Therefore, it is abundantly clear that assessing officer did not give any evidence of any tangible material in his possession in the recorded reasons other than the original material on which disallowance under section 14A was based in the original assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. Hence there is no ‘tangible material’ to come

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JAY SHREE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.736 & 737/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13) Jcit (Osd), Cir-4(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 10, Camac Street, Industry House, 15Th Floor, Kolkata – Kolkata – 700 069. 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 7788 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

2) (iii). Therefore, it is abundantly clear that assessing officer did not give any evidence of any tangible material in his possession in the recorded reasons other than the original material on which disallowance under section 14A was based in the original assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. Hence there is no ‘tangible material’ to come

SHRI KARTICK CHANDRA MONDAL ,HOOGHLY vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 8, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

256(2) is to six calendar months and not one hundred and eighty days. In view of the above judgment in the case of Munnalal Shrikishan Mainpuri (supra), we are of the view that the term “Month” means calendar month (and not period of thirty days), which should be applied for the purpose of section 54EC

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

2), it became mandatory that they should have culminated in an order under section 143(3). 10. In Trustees of H. E. H. the Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 381 the Apex Court has observed that it is "settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under

UNITED BANK OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, LTU - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.75/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) United Bank Of India Vs. Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata. 16, Old Court House Street, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu5624P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 23, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.06.2017 Passed In Case No.06/Cit(A)-23/L.T.U-1/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing Club Entrance Fees Of Rs.97,794/- In The Course Of Assessment Affirmed In The Lower In The Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Assessee Herein Is Admittedly A Bank Which Claimed The Impugned Expenditure As An Allowable Deduction Under Revenue Head. The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Order Dated 25.02.2015 Held The Same To Be Capital Expenditure Than Revenue In Nature. The Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Disallowance.

256 CTR 104 (Madras). We conclude in the foregoing factual and legal position that the assessee’s case comes u/s 35D(2)(ii) since in connection with extension of its undertaking only as evident from assessee’s foregoing factual details. The CIT(A)’s identical findings under challenge deleting impugned identical section 35D disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

section 68 of the Act in the absence of creditworthiness of these parties and made addition. We find no reason to sustain the same, as the very basis is not doubted by the AO, and assessee has discharged its onus by filing all the details before the AO. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

DCIT, CIR-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

M/S SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.-3(1), KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 256(2) of the Act by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It is submitted that as the Department has accepted the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is not open to the Department to agitate on the same issue again without just cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

EASTERN QUICK MOVERS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 1(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

2,151,160 Blue Star Ltd 38,750 38,750 Bokoraro Laminate Industries 17,250 17,250 Bokoraro Polylam Industries 16,300 16,300 Caprihans India Ltd 516,160 516,160 496,504 516,160 Chika Overseas Pvt Ltd 465,689 465,689 Cogent Export Ltd 999,648 999,648 Crompton Grieves

THE STATE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

disallowed it as allowance under section 37(1) of I.T. Act. Out of the entertainment, expenses, amounting to Rs.3865 incurred by the Directors of the assessee company, for entertainment at the Diners club and C.C.1, the I.T.O. regarded Rs.1365 only as permissible deduction under section 37(2) of I.T. Act, taking the view that the remaining sum of Rs.2500